Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feenix Films LLC


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Jayjg (talk) 04:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Feenix Films LLC

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I cannot find any significant coverage of this company. There are two sources supplied which address two examples of work by this company, but neither source directly covers the company itself in significant detail. Additionally, I cannot find independent sources to offer verifiable content about the company. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb  04:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a legitimate Independent Film Company. It is a new company which has made tremendous strides in its short 2 1/2 year existence. It has in fact already received a distributor for its current film. As with many Independent Film Companies they are not going to receive the level of "exposure" a celebrity or Warner Bros is going to get. Feenix Films LLC has all relevant business materials including a tax id in the state of NJ.

The two newspaper articles clearly state the existence of this company. IMDB states the existence of this company. This is a real company. Both of the sources provided DO cover the company itself especially the LOCK-LOAD-LOVE article. That article clearly states the creation of the company and the founders frustration with the current climate in filmmaking.

I am curious what you are looking for in regards to "independent sources to offer verifiable content about the company". This is a reference I would like some clear explanation on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KateMcG2001 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I offer this comment as an uninvolved, unbiased editor who happened to come across the last question in a quick scan of the Articles for deletion log: References in an article must be intellectually independent of the article subject and be reliable. See Reliable sources for an explanation of what is meant by "reliable". Also, some (not necessarily all) references must be about the company, not just mention it in passing in the context of something else, in order to meet notability criteria. What this all boils down to is that a company's mere existence is not enough to qualify it for a Wikipedia article; it must meet certain notability criteria in order to merit inclusion. The specific notability criteria for companies can be found here. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 05:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

So let me understand this correctly...A highly well respected NJ newspaper that covers Northern NJ, and is in no way associated with Feenix Films chooses to do not one but two articles on the company, and that isn't considered legitimate criteria for this company? Feenix Films is in fact a legal entity in the form of a company. It is not a group but a company that is exposed to the public. A point in fact there are second party source in the form of a review that is written on the imdb page for Feenix Film's project Nicky Newark. I would of hoped that the individual who initially complained about the legitimacy of the Feenix Films entry would have done more thorough research and seen that someone unrelated to Feenix Films wrote a review of a film and stated throughout the review many of the points mentioned in the article for Wiki. For ease I've placed the review's link here http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1682178/. It is the imdb page for Feenix Film's project "Nicky Newark". By the way films cannot get onto imdb unless they have been submitted to film festivals and open to the general public. Imdb looks for all projects listed on their site to be of legitimate making. If a project is not of legitimate making you can not get a listing plain and simple. This proves another level of legitimacy of the Feenix Films entry. At this point I feel that the two editors are simply being difficult for unknown reasons and it is quite honestly uncalled for and unneeded. There is plenty of material on wiki that is far less substantiated and yet is posted without challenge. I'm confused and concerned as to why this article and this company has been assaulted in the way it has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KateMcG2001 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do not take this as an assault on the article or the company. Indeed, I'd be sincerely happy to withdraw my concerns if you can supply reliable, secondary sources that cover the company directly and in significant detail. Sources that review films produced by the company are not covering the company, they are covering either the company's films or David LaRosa, and mention the company mostly in context. They are not "articles on the company." That is a key distinction, as KuyaBriBri pointed out above. That "Nicky Newark" was reviewed by an independent reviewer (and there aren't currently any external reviews listed on the Nicky Newark iMDB entry, either way) does not constitute coverage of Feenix Films -- it constitutes coverage of Nicky Newark. That said, it's possible others will disagree with my interpretation of the sources. Please don't feel like this is an assault; that is not the intention, nor is it my intention to be difficult. Indeed, many articles that are sent to AfD end up getting enormously improved through the process. As an aside, if you want to re-locate the article back to Articles for Creation so it can be worked on through that process, I'm happy to work with you there rather than have a deletion discussion. I note that you initially started the article at AFC and then re-created it in the main article space before it had been reviewed. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  11:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - At issue is not the existence of the production company, but rather whether the company meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. With the sourcing present in the article, and my own searches, I conclude that there is no significant coverage about the company to meet inclusion criteria.  -- Whpq (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 23:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)




 * Delete -This article seems to have been made for promotion purposes only. Evidence of this is found in the lack of any in-line citations, in the very low (non-existent?) coverage of the firm by reliable sources, in the fact that the entire article has been edited only by one user: KateMcG2001(talk | contribs) and that his account seems to have been created only for that purpose. Lankdarhn (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Can't seem to find any mention of this company outside other sites where you can add/edit your own content. Interstellarsheep (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.